Update Aug. 30: The district attorney’s office met the deadline to file the brief in its appeal of the dismissal of the cases against Al Hill III. Prosecutors have requested oral arguments in the case.

Update Aug, 29: Yesterday, I told you that a filing by the DA’s office in the Hill appeal contained a quote from Mark Twain. But I didn’t blog the quote.

This is the quote attributed to Twain the state’s filing: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

I just googled the quote and it turned up tons of references to Mark Twain. Wikiquote, which is hardly proof, says the quote is frequently attributed to Twain, as well as Will Rogers, Satchel Paige and Artemus Ward.

Update Aug, 28: The DA’soffice ha until Friday to write an opening brief to the appellate court. A brief would cite prosecutors’ legal rational for the appeal.

The way for the DA’s office to object to Levario’s findings of fact and conclusions is the appeal process, which is already underway because prosecutors are appealing the dismissal of the charges against Hill.

Original post Aug. 28: The 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas struck the Dallas County DA’s objections to the “findings of fact and conclusions of law” in the case of Al Hill III, a Texas family oil heir accused of mortgage fraud.

State District Judge Lena Levario dismissed the charges against Hill, saying in her findings and conclusions that District Attorney Craig Watkins sought indictments against Hill to help Watkins’ political benefactor, Lisa Blue.

Louis DeLuca/Staff photographer

Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins talks with with reporters Friday after being acquitted of contempt charges.

Justice Lana Myers wrote in Tuesday’s order that the DA’s office filed the objections with the wrong court. Instead of filing the objections to the appellate court, the DA’s office should have filed them with Levario’s court.

The appellate court’s order reminds the DA’s office that the state’s brief is due to the appellate court by Friday and prosecutors have already received one extension.

The state’s objections called Levario’s findings and facts a “tornado of injustice” and quoted Mark Twain.

Hill’s attorneys filed a motion Monday asking that the the DA’s office’s objections be found improper. The appellate court did not address the issues Hill’s attorneys brought up because the district attorney’s office filed the objections with the wrong court.

Blue and two other attorneys were battling with Hill in federal civil court over attorneys fees accrued while representing Hill in a battle over his family’s fortune. The indictments were filed weeks before the trial.

Hill ultimately lost the court battle over fees. But the ruling is being revisited.

Two North Texas federal prosecutors and one former prosecutor have been recognized by Attorney General Eric Holder for their work on one of the biggest mortgage fraud cases in Texas history.

Receiving a 2013 Director’s Award were: Shamoil T. Shipchandler, who is a deputy criminal chief in charge of the U.S. attorney’s Plano office; Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher A. Eason; and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard J. Johnson.

They are among 154 people from across the country who the Justice Department honored.

Holder thanked the three lawyers for prosecuting the largest mortgage fraud scheme in the Eastern District of Texas.

“Forty defendants conspired to defraud lending institutions by convincing them to approve mortgage loans for residential properties with fraudulently inflated values,” Holder wrote. “Your dedication to this case led to 37 of 40 defendants pleading guilty, successful verdicts in two trials, sentences of up to 120 months’ imprisonment, restitution orders totaling more than $100 million, and forfeitures in excess of $11 million.”

Shipchandler was the top prosecutor. Johnson led the trial team for the two trials, and Eason “played a crucial role in streamlining the evidence in the massive case,” the U.S. attorney’s office said.

“Today’s awardees exemplify what it truly means to be a patriot, and it is an honor to recognize them for their extraordinary service,” said Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys Director H. Marshall Jarrett.

John M. Bales, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Texas, said during a presentation in Plano on Thursday that the lawyers worked long hours “not for any notion of individual glory, but because they are driven to serve and to be instruments of justice where wrongdoing has occurred.”

“I am so proud of Shamoil, Chris and Jay who represent the finest principles in prosecution; they are fair, persistent and highly skilled,” Bales said.

An attorney for Lisa Blue, a political benefactor for Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins, said Thursday that he stands by his court filing that said federal investigators have closed an investigation into Blue and found she committed no crime.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI have declined to confirm or deny whether such an investigation exists.

On Wednesday, attorneys for Hill — who are battling with Blue and two other lawyers in court over Hill’s attorneys fees — filed a court document suggesting the investigation is still open and that neither Blue or Watkins had been cleared.

Hart on Thursday said that Hill attorney George Milner should not have been able to be updated on the status of any investigation.

“I would certainly like to know how Mr. Milner obtained his personal knowledge. He knows that the U.S. Attorney’s Office can only communicate with the attorney for the person who is being investigated, which what was done with me, on behalf of my client, Ms. Blue,” Hart said. “The U.S. Attorney’s office shouldn’t have made any representations to him about the status of my client, and I am sure that they did not, so it is no surprise that they did not respond to him.”

Hart said Milner’s statement in the court document was “cryptic and at minimum, misleading.”

Last week, Blue’s attorneys attached to a court document a letter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Texas, saying that based on a conversation with a federal prosecutor, they understood the investigation into Blue was closed and she had been cleared.

Milner also included a letter to the U.S. attorney’s office in a Wednesday court filing saying his understanding that neither Blue nor Watkins had been cleared.

Both sides requested a response if their assertions were incorrect. Neither was contacted by federal prosecutors.

But Hart said that he spoke with the U.S. Attorney’s office before writing his letter and filing it with a court document.

Hill is arguing with Blue and two other attorneys over fees from his representation in a fight over the family fortune. Hill argued the indictments prevented him from testifying in the fee dispute. He lost but that decision is b\eing revisited.

They disagree about whether findings by a state district judge who dismissed the mortgage fraud indictments against Hill should be considered in the fee dispute.

State District Judge Lena Levario wrote in her facts and findings earlier this month that Watkins sought the indictments to help Blue.

Levario held a hearing in March looking into whether Watkins committed prosecutorial misconduct in seeking the indictment of Hill. She dismissed the charges, in part because Watkins refused to testify, and held Watkins in contempt of court.

A hearing is set for Aug. 23 to determine whether the contempt charges will be upheld. Watkins faces a $500 fine if another judge finds the contempt case stands.

The DA’s office is considering whether to refile charges against Hill and is appealing Levario’s dismissal of the original cases.

Authorities declined to comment and have not confirmed or denied an investigation although attorneys, including Hart, have said for months that the FBI was investigating dealings between Blue and Watkins in regard to the indictments of Al Hill III for mortgage fraud.

It is unclear where any investigation into Watkins stands and whether Watkins’ attorneys sought the same assurance from federal prosecutors.

A judge dismissed the charges against Hill in March. The DA’s office is appealing the dismissal and considering whether to re-file charges.

Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins’ re-election campaign sent out an email Wednesday afternoon addressing the poor choice of words by a special prosecutor saying Watkins was trying to get his “head out the the noose.”

The email quotes Watkins as saying: “Some days this office is about having the courage to convict the guilty. Some days this office is about having the courage to free the innocent, but every day this office is about making sure that no one in Dallas County has a noose around his or her head. We do not do that in Dallas anymore.”

The email continues to say: “Earlier this week, the Dallas DA’s office sought to once again protect the rights of the innocent by protecting the attorney-client privilege and work product of our office, which is afforded by law. My role as the DA is to preserve the integrity of every case to ensure the public’s trust, but our efforts are being attacked.”

Legal experts have said that Watkins made a good argument by saying his work as a prosecutor was protected but that he gutted it by allowing subordinates to testify.

The emails says: “Some days this office is about having the courage to free the innocent, but every day this office is about making sure that no one in Dallas County has a noose around his or her head. That conjures up images of a time when there was no due process of law. I have done my best to redefine what it is to be a prosecutor — it’s not about winning but about seeking the truth. The truth of the matter here is that I am experiencing a political lynching, but you can stop the bleeding.”

The special prosecutor, Bob Hinton, later apologized, saying that he only meant that Watkins was on the “hot seat” because of the pending contempt case.

One of Watkins’ attorneys said Watkins did not ask for nor want an apology.

State District Judge Lena Levario held Watkins in contempt March 7 after he refused to testify at a hearing where he was accused of indicting oil fortune heir Al Hill III as a favor to his political benefactor, Lisa Blue.

Hill is the great-grandson of oilman H.L. Hunt, and Blue had represented him in a dispute over part of the family fortune. Blue and other attorneys sued Hill over legal fees. When Hill was indicted by Watkins’ office on a charge of mortgage fraud, Hill argued, the indictments prevented him from taking the stand during a civil trial over the legal fees. He lost the fight over the fees, although that decision is now being revisited.

Levario also dismissed the mortgage fraud charges against Hill, saying he could not get a fair hearing without Watkins’ testimony. The DA’s office is appealing that decision and considering re-filing the criminal charges against Hill.

Wednesday’s email to supporters concludes with Watkins asking for “support as we press forward to raise money early in this fight to pursue justice.”

No one yet as officially declared themselves to be running against Watkins, who is seeking a second term.

The contempt case has yet to be resolved. A hearing must be scheduled before another state district judge who will decide if the charge will be upheld.

Attorneys involved in the case also say that the FBI is investigating dealings between Blue and Watkins.

Original post: Closing arguments are expected this afternoon in the case of whether to recuse the judge who held Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins in contempt for refusing to testify at a hearing where the DA was accused of prosecutorial misconduct.

Vernon Bryant/Staff Photographer

State District Judge Lena Levario answers questions from attorney Ron Poole during a July 15 hearing regarding a contempt citation against Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins.

Administrative Judge John Ovard will then decide whether to remove State District Judge Lena Levario from the case after a recently fired county employee alleged Levario made disparaging remarks about Watkins over lunch.

Ovard will decide whether to recuse Levrio based on whether a “reasonable person” would think Levario is biased, not on whether Ovard thinks Levario is biased.

The former employee, Jill Reese, testified Friday that the Levario said she was going to “serve Craig Watkins up to the FBI on a silver platter.”

Reese said the comments were made during a lunch at Subway while they are other county employees were going through computer training in Fort Worth.

Reese testified that Levario remarked that Watkins thought he was a “superstar” who was “above the law” and said Levario said that Watkins “would definitely see the inside of a jail cell when this was all over with.”

Levario held Watkins in contempt March 7 after he refused to testify at a hearing looking into claims by oil family heir Al Hill III that he was indicted on mortgage fraud charges as a favor to Watkins’ political benefactor, Lisa Blue.

Reese said the May 20 conversation began when Levario sat down at the table and said she had been on the phone with the FBI, who wanted access to sealed documents in the mortgage fraud case.

Attorneys involved in the case have said that the FBI is investigating dealings between Blue and Watkins. Levario did sign an order granting agents access to such documents.

Dallas County District Attorney's office

Lisa Blue and Craig Watkins

Reese was demoted days before she signed an affidavit on July 11 about the remarks she alleged Levario made and fired by a Skype instant message two days later.

The latest chapter in the increasingly bitter feud between the two elected Democrats has to be resolved before Watkins can find out whether the contempt of court charge against him will be upheld.

When officers of the court such as Watkins are held in contempt, as he was by Levario, then they are given a hearing before another judge to determine if the charge should stick. Even if Levario remains on the case, she would not be the final say on the charge against Watkins.

That hearing was to take place July 15, but the judge, State District Judge Bob Brotherton, ordered Levario to redo her original contempt charge based on a motion filed by Watkins’ attorneys because it didn’t specify what punishment Watkins could face.

As part of their bid to have her forcibly recused from the contempt case, Watkins’ attorneys are also arguing that Levario can’t remain judge because she was also called as a witness for Monday’s hearing about whether or not to uphold the contempt charge. She testified briefly before Brotherton ordered her to redo the contempt charge.

If Levario remains on the case, she will amend the contempt charge and send it to Brotherton, who will then hold a hearing to decide whether to uphold the contempt charge.

But if Ovard removes Levario from the case, he must appoint another judge.

If that other judge decides Watkins should be held in contempt, that judge will send a contempt of court charge to Brotherton for another hearing on whether or not to uphold the contempt charge. But if the judge does not believe Watkins should be held in contempt, the case ends. Brotherton would not need to hold a hearing.

If Brotherton upholds the contempt charge against Watkins, then Watkins could face a fine or jail time. According to testimony, Levario had previously indicated she might levy a fine.

Hill is the great-grandson of oilman H.L. Hunt, and Blue had represented him in a dispute over part of the family fortune. But Blue and other attorneys sued Hill over legal fees. When Hill was indicted by Watkins’ office on a charge of mortgage fraud, Hill argued, the indictments prevented him from taking the stand during a civil trial over the legal fees. He lost the fight over the fees, although that decision is now being revisited.

Levario also dismissed the charges against Hill, saying he could not get a fair hearing without Watkins’ testimony. The DA’s office is appealing that decision and considering whether to refile criminal charges against Hill.

Both sides have rested. It will resume t 1 p.m. Monday with closing arguments. A full account of today’s hearing will appear in tomorrow’s paper.

Orignal post at 6:13 a.m. Friday: A hearing set to begin this morning will determine whether the judge who held Dallas County Craig Watkins in contempt of court should be removed from the case.

Vernon Bryant/Staff Photographer

State District Judge Lena Levario answers questions from attorney Ron Poole during a July 15 hearing regarding a contempt citation against Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins.

State District Judge Lena Levario held Watkins in contempt March 7 after he refused to testify at a hearing looking into allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against him by oil family heir Al Hill III.

The DA’s office asked Monday for Levario to be recused from the case after accusations that she made “disparaging” remarks about Watkins. A former county employee claimed in an affidavit that Levario told her “that she was ‘going to serve Craig Watkins, Dallas County district attorney, up on a silver platter to the FBI.’”

Reese said in the affidavit that Levario made the remarks about Watkins on May 20 at a Fort Worth Subway.

They were working on a county project involving computerized criminal justice records. Dallas County has teamed up with other counties, including Tarrant, for the project.

Reese, who has declined to comment, was assigned to the project as part of her IT job. Levario is representing state district judges in the project.

Reese had moved to the IT department from another county job as the jail population coordinator, tracking inmate population levels.

In her affidavit, Reese also claimed that she was demoted from her IT position and last week had her salary cut in half from the $60,000 range to the $30,000 range.

The hearing will be before Administrative Judge John Ovard at the Frank Crowley Courts Building outside downtown Dallas. It should begin around 10:30 a.m.

Both Levario and Watkins are Democrats who took office in 2007.

State District Judge Bob Brotherton, a Republican from Wichita Falls, was to decide Monday at a hearing whether to uphold the charge.

State District Judge Bob Brotherton

But the hearing ended quickly: A last-minute challenge to the contempt order by Watkins’ attorneys led Brotherton to order Levario to correct the contempt charge because she didn’t say what punishment Watkins could face.

Watkins could face jail time, a fine or no sanctions if the contempt charge is upheld.

If Levario remains on the case, she will amend the contempt charge and send it to Brotherton, who will then hold a hearing to decide whether or not to uphold the contempt charge.

But if Ovard removes Levario from the case, he must appoint another judge.

If that other judge decides Watkins should be held in contempt, that judge will send a contempt of court charge to Brotherton for the hearing. But if the judge does not believe Watkins should be held in contempt, the case ends. Brotherton would not need to hold a hearing.

Levario held Watkins in contempt after he refused to testify about allegations by Hill, who claims he was indicted on mortgage fraud charges as a favor to Watkins’ political benefactor, Lisa Blue.

Hill’s attorneys wanted to ask Watkins about conversations he had with Blue about their client. But Watkins refused to answer questions, saying his work as a prosecutor was privileged, even though he allowed his subordinates to testify.

Hill is the great-grandson of oilman H.L. Hunt, and Blue had represented him in a dispute over part of the family fortune. But Blue and other attorneys sued Hill over legal fees. When he was indicted by Watkins’ office for mortgage fraud, Hill argued, the indictments prevented him from taking the stand during the civil trial over the legal fees. He lost the fight over the fees.

Attorneys involved in the case say the FBI is investigating dealings between Blue and Watkins. Agents recently obtained a court order from Levario for sealed documents in the case.

The recusal motion is now before administrative judge John Ovard. He will not rule today.

The DA’s office, in seeking to remove State District Judge Lena Levario from the case, said Levario “made disparaging remarks about Watkins.”

In an affidavit attached to the motion, a county employee, Jill Reese, who was recently demoted wrote that Levario told her while having lunch May 20 at a Fort Worth Subway, “Levario stated to me that she was ‘going to serve Craig Watkins, Dallas County District Attorney, up on a silver platter to the FBI.”

Reese also said in the affidavit that “all you have to have is enough money to have the right attorneys with the right relationships to control the outcome of a court case in any courtroom, including mine.”

Reese, who could not be reached for comment, was demoted recently and said in the affidavit that “I know for certain that Judge Lena Levario is behind this. I have been told by more than one person that she is trying to get me fired from Dallas County.

Levario said that she could not comment on the accusations because the case is pending in her court.

But Bob Hinton, one of the special prosecutors on the contempt case, said he can’t see Levario make such comments.

“That doesn’t sound like the Judge Levario that I know,” Hinton said. “The Judge Levario I know is way too smart to do something like that.”

Update at 11:05 a.m

State District Judge Bob Brotherton ordered the contempt charge redone after Scottie Allen, Watkins’ personal attorney, pointed out that the order holding Watkins in contempt had a “defect.”

“The order did not state the punishment or an opportunity for him to purge himself” of the contempt order, Allen said outside the courtroom.

The contempt charge did not say whether Watkins was held in civil or criminal contempt, Allen said. Civil contempt is about fixing a violation, and criminal contempt is about punishment.

Allen, a defense attorney, and Heath Harris, Watkins’ top prosecutor, said the case should instead be dismissed.

“She didn’t do it right” and Levario shouldn’t be able to redo the order, Harris said.

But Ron Poole, the special prosecutor, disagreed, saying the process will just begin again.

The judge overseeing the contempt charge against Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins has set a date for a hearing on the matter.

Craig Watkins was held in contempt of court March 7 after refusing to testify at a hearing looking into allegations of misconduct against him by oil family heir Al Hill III.

The contempt citation will be addressed at a July 15 hearing before State District Judge Bob Brotherton.

Brotherton initially said that he would rule this week on a motion by Watkins to dismiss the contempt citation from a March 7 hearing where he refused to testify after being order to do so by State District Judge Lena Levario. The hearing addressed allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against Watkins by oil family heir, Al Hill III.

Now that motion will be addressed at the hearing, Brotherton said in an email Tuesday.

“The first order of business will be the pending Motion to Dismiss Contempt Proceeding. If that motion is granted, the matter will be concluded at the trial level, subject to an appeal by the Attorney Pro Tem [special prosecutor,." Brotherton wrote.

"If the motion to dismiss is denied, we will proceed to hear the de novo trial of the contempt matter."

Hill has alleged that Watkins brought mortgage fraud indictments against him as a favor to Watkins’ political benefactor, Lisa Blue.

State District Judge Bob Brotherton

Blue and other attorneys represented Hill in a dispute with his family and later sued him for legal fees. Hill argued that the indictments prevented him from taking the stand in the civil case that he ultimately lost.

Levario dismissed the charges against Hill after holding Watkins in contempt, saying Hill could not get a fair hearing because of Watkins’ refusal to testify.

Brotherton, a judge in Wichita Falls, was appointed to preside over the case because officers of the court, like Watkins, are automatically given a hearing when held in contempt. This step is meant to be a check on the power given to judges.

If Brotherton upholds the contempt ruling, Levario will decide Watkins’ punishment. He can face jail time, a fine or no sanction.

Brotherton appointed Poole, the first assistant district attorney in Cooke County, to prosecute the case.

The DA’s office maintains that Hill committed a crime and has said that Watkins and teh DA’s office did nothing wrong by filing charges.

The verdict — State District Judge Lena Levario held Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins in contempt March 7 after he refused to testify at a hearing looking into allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against him. Levario also dismissed mortgage fraud charges against oil family heir Al Hill III as a result of Watkins’ refusal to testify.

Craig Watkins was held in contempt of court March 7 after refusing to testify at a hearing looking into allegations of misconduct against him by oil family heir Al Hill III.

A hearing before District Judge Bob Brotherton of Wichita Falls will be held to determine whether the contempt charge will stand. No date has been set for the hearing. Brotherton has said the hearing might occur in May.

If the contempt order is upheld, Watkins could be jailed, fined or face no sanctions.

The case — Hill had accused Watkins of indicting him in 2011 on mortgage fraud charges as a favor to Watkins’ friend and political benefactor Lisa Blue.

At the time of the indictment, Blue and other attorneys were suing Hill for attorneys’ fees in a civil case. Hill said the pending criminal charges prevented him from taking the stand in the fee dispute. The attorneys were awarded an amount that was later reduced to $22 million.

Watkins refused to testify at the hearing before Levario because he said he believes how prosecutors do their jobs should not be questioned in court. Legal experts said he had a strong argument but gutted it by allowing other prosecutors in his office to testify.

What’s new — Email exchanges between Levario and attorneys involved in the case, filed last week as exhibits in a court document, reiterate the reasons Levario dismissed the cases against Hill.

The Dallas County district attorney’s office filed the court record seeking clarity from the judge about the dismissal date in the Hill cases.

In the filing, the district attorney’s office included emails between Levario, prosecutors and an attorney for Hill.

“I determined that I needed to find out what was going on in Mr. Watkins’ mind regarding his decision to indict in order to determine whether the defense motion should be granted,” Levario wrote in an April 17 email. “I was unable to do that because Mr. Watkins refused to testify.”

Another email from the judge said she “dismissed the cases based on the defendant’s denial of a right to have this hearing.”

Levario had said at the hearing where she held Watkins in contempt that his failure to testify deprived Hill of his right to the hearing.